UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Search UvA-DARE

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disabilities in the importance of static and dynamic
risk factors for recidivism

Journal

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

Volume | Issue number

58 | 11

Pages (from-to)

992-1003

Document type

Article

Faculty

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG)

Institute

Research Institute of Child Development and Education (RICDE)

Abstract

BackgroundJuvenile offenders with intellectual disability (ID) have been largely ignored in the literature of risk assessment,
while they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ID is a risk factor for juvenile delinquency and recidivism.
The aim of this study was to examine whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact
of risk factors for recidivism. Both the impact of static and dynamic risk factors were examined. Static risk factors were
examined in the criminal history domain and dynamic risk factors were examined in the domains of family, school, use of free
time, friends, alcohol/drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. This knowledge is important for both assessment and treatment
of juvenile offenders with ID.

MethodThe sample consisted of adolescents who appeared before the courts for
a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. The group of ID juvenile
offenders (n = 102) consisted of juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of ID, which means a full scale IQ of less than
70, coupled with significant deficits in adaptive behaviour, with childhood onset. The juveniles of this group are special
education students or they have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. The group without ID (n = 526), was a random
sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of ID.

ResultsNo differences were found between
juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors on recidivism in most domains. However, in the skills
domain, the relations between all risk factors and recidivism were significantly stronger in adolescents without ID than in
adolescents with ID. Although not or only borderline statistically significant, these risk factors were all negatively related
to recidivism in adolescents with ID, whereas these risk factors were significantly and positively related to recidivism in
adolescents without ID.

ConclusionsThere are few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID
in the impact of risk factors for recidivism, suggesting that the same assessment methods can be used for juvenile offenders
with and without ID. There were, however, differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the skills domain.
What these differences mean for the treatment of juvenile offenders is yet to be determined. For now it is important to be
aware of potential negative (side) effects on recidivism when skills training is offered to juvenile offenders with ID.

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let
the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible
and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
You will be contacted as soon as possible.